Coerced sex is rape, whether it is called an arranged marriage, or unwanted sex after marriage. Just because God or Paul says submit, does not necessarily imply consent. There are many women who enjoy doing their "duty" and enjoy their maternal role in the society. If there weren't as you note the human race would be in dire straits. But the Abrahamic dogma that this is the only acceptable role for women, especially as screamed by the religious political right is simply dangerous to most women and to society.

I am unconvinced that you have anything other than an axe to grind here -- as well as some very warped views of sexuality -- male sexuality in particular.

which is a very warped view of sexuality in my considered opinion. First of all not even all men are thinking about getting laid. Many are, as are most women, much more concerned with finding a suitable partner for parenting. "Getting laid" is a result of finding a suitable partner, not an obsession in and of itself.

I did not invent the Abrahamic concept of women as chattel. There are extensive discussions of the concept both in the old and the new Testaments and in the Qur'an with elaborate regulations on transfers of the chattels and compensations to males for rape etc. I can't comment on the Eastern religions as I do not know enough about them. But I am very clear on the Abrahamic Dogma relating to women.

You might not have invented the "concept," but you did invent your own jaundiced opinon, and hence, your ludicrious assertion that the population is largely the result of women being coherced into sex.

You look at one half of it, and ignore all the stuff about honoring, loving and respecting women.

Since I understand some religious teachings to be social -- that is, limited to certain times and places -- I can also understand that some teachings or traditions regarding women are now out-dated.

But again, the premise that they were intended in the first place to degrade women is ridiculous.

In the traditions of my people, councils were always made-up of 7 men and 7 women. We had women warriors and war cheifs. Our peace towns were guarded by women. A persons lineage was traced through the female side. Women owned most of the property, and were certainly not subject to the domination of men. True equality of the sexes. That being said, I know of other nations that were more male dominated.

Forgive me if I see the Abrahamic traditions of absolute male dominance as quaint.

In the traditions of my people, councils were always made-up of 7 men and 7 women. We had women warriors and war cheifs. Our peace towns were guarded by women. A persons lineage was traced through the female side. Women owned most of the property, and were certainly not subject to the domination of men. True equality of the sexes. That being said, I know of other nations that were more male dominated.

Forgive me if I see the Abrahamic traditions of absolute male dominance as quaint.

I see many traditions as quaint too. And the sooner we dump them, the better.

But I don't judge the entire Abrahamic world as such. Heck, even in the supposedly iron-fisted Muslim world, there are plenty of women in scholarly or high government positions.

Likewise, look at the history of the Judeo-Christian West. Many strong and admired women.

No man who has ever spent much time in the company of women will regard the as "weak" simply because they cannot, for example, bench press as much as he can.

Mytmouse, obviously I'm not suggesting that all, a majority or even a major minority of Abrahamics "rape" their wives, but the dogma of such beliefs has fueled the religiously approved subjection of women to real horrors. And there are always other cultural factors to take into account.

Frankly, I couldn't imagine Scandinavian women allowing themselves to be bound to sharia law (not withstanding the occasional abberation).

Should folks not make sweeping statements?

Of course they shouldn't.

Should posters refrain from ascribing emotions to other posters that they are simply pulling out of their ass?

Yeah, probably............

"Green grow the rushes, OGreen grow the rushes, OThe sweetest hours that ever I spentAre spent among the lassies, O

There's naught but care on every handIn every hour that passes, OWhat signifies the life of manIf it were not for the lassies, O

The worldly race may riches chaseAnd riches still may fly them, OAnd though at last they catch them fastTheir hearts can ne'er enjoy them, O

Mytmouse, obviously I'm not suggesting that all, a majority or even a major minority of Abrahamics "rape" their wives, but the dogma of such beliefs has fueled the religiously approved subjection of women to real horrors. And there are always other cultural factors to take into account.

Frankly, I couldn't imagine Scandinavian women allowing themselves to be bound to sharia law (not withstanding the occasional abberation).

Should folks not make sweeping statements?

Of course they shouldn't.

Should posters refrain from ascribing emotions to other posters that they are simply pulling out of their ass?

Yeah, probably............

"Green grow the rushes, OGreen grow the rushes, OThe sweetest hours that ever I spentAre spent among the lassies, O

There's naught but care on every handIn every hour that passes, OWhat signifies the life of manIf it were not for the lassies, O

The worldly race may riches chaseAnd riches still may fly them, OAnd though at last they catch them fastTheir hearts can ne'er enjoy them, O

Either a doctrine is true, or it is flawed. There is no question the bible says women are inferior. There is no question this christian tradition continues today: Referring to women as property in marriage ceremonies, the wife's family paying for the service being a remnant of the traditional dowry.

So if it's wrong there, and women ARE equal-then the whole book is suspect as it cannot be considered "True" any longer. Either that, or women SHOULD be property-if that's the case, there is nothing to question elsewhere. Can't have it both ways though-if you wish to argue they are equal, then you inherently admit the whole book, EVERY CLAIM, including those about Jesus very likely may be flawed.

And men think about sex quite a lot. We're hardwired to, especially when we're young. We're visual creatures, and we're wired to appreciate the female form.

If you think the average 20 year-old guy is thinking about a potential suitable co-parent every time a girl in tight jeans walks by, then you must have slept through that stage of your life.

Of all people, I would expect an atheist to be the last one to be ashamed of his biology.

While it is true humans are sexual, they are intelligently sexual, and the fact that humans mature sexually long before they mature intellectually means that sexual mores are strongly conditioned. Add to that that a human is normally totally dependent on at least one parent for nurturing including socializing until at least puberty reproductive success does not necessarily imply simply bigger litters.

To deal with your rude, sexist and improper assumption about my sexuality directly: I was socialized into responsible sexuality at home and in my non-Abrahamic church, and learned what “No” meant long before it was anything but an academic interest. I also learned that I had a responsibility to say “No” myself if I didn’t like the responsibilities involved in getting laid. I appreciated the tight jeans as much as the next guy but they were not for me an advert to take them off, just a notice that she was fit and willing to get acquainted with eligible men. It was no different from me getting fit as a gymnast and wearing tight singlets to advertise my fitness and interest. In college I was quite popular, probably more so than the guys interested only in getting laid, since I was interested in a relationship not necessarily in sex. I will admit I was somewhat out of the mainstream, but I enjoyed female company without being obsessed with sex and was rewarded for doing so. No I did not sleep through that stage of my life I was just taught to control my sexuality. Maybe I was not the average 20 year-old guy many of my friends came from the women as property religion, but it worked for me.

J'CarlinIf the shoe doesn't fit, don't cram your foot in it and complain.

This appears to me to be a weak attempt at posturing, to once again "prove" that atheism holds a monopoly on reason and rational thought, and call for a round of high-fives.

No, reason works because certain rules are followed. the subject matter, and who it is, is irrelevant. It simply happenes to be a fact that Theism has a dilemma that it is not based on any sort of facts, so has an immediate disadvantage.

Lazy thinking is lazy, or sloppy, no matter what the topic or who it is.

As for the answers, I and other posters often offer well-reasoned, very good answers. What sometimes follows in pouting protest, because the answer might not be what was expeted, or perhaps falls outside a rhetorical box.

No you don't. You offer dogmatic views that don't measure up to reason. Perhaps you want them to be, but that's the hardship of theism: it isn't based on facts. The only approach a theist has is honesty. Look at MaineCaptian's example. Her position worksdue to humility and honesty. As a result she earns respect from non-believers.

This isn't a theist versus atheist divide. It is a reasonable versus unreasonable divide. Many theists are on the side of reason, like amcolph and wohali, among others. it is the dogmatists who fall on the unreasonable side.

After having been in, or perhaps more importanty, been an observer of -- many discussions, debates and arguments over subjects across every imaginable spectrum of the profound to the mundane, I have concluded this:

Often, just about anything can be made to sound or look good, per se, through detailed arguments. However, the truth, or rationality of a thing can sometimes best be determined by simply pulling back, and look to the conclusions it proposes.

And men think about sex quite a lot. We're hardwired to, especially when we're young. We're visual creatures, and we're wired to appreciate the female form.

If you think the average 20 year-old guy is thinking about a potential suitable co-parent every time a girl in tight jeans walks by, then you must have slept through that stage of your life.

Of all people, I would expect an atheist to be the last one to be ashamed of his biology.

While it is true humans are sexual, they are intelligently sexual, and the fact that humans mature sexually long before they mature intellectually means that sexual mores are strongly conditioned. Add to that that a human is normally totally dependent on at least one parent for nurturing including socializing until at least puberty reproductive success does not necessarily imply simply bigger litters.

To deal with your rude, sexist and improper assumption about my sexuality directly: I was socialized into responsible sexuality at home and in my non-Abrahamic church, and learned what “No” meant long before it was anything but an academic interest. I also learned that I had a responsibility to say “No” myself if I didn’t like the responsibilities involved in getting laid. I appreciated the tight jeans as much as the next guy but they were not for me an advert to take them off, just a notice that she was fit and willing to get acquainted with eligible men. It was no different from me getting fit as a gymnast and wearing tight singlets to advertise my fitness and interest. In college I was quite popular, probably more so than the guys interested only in getting laid, since I was interested in a relationship not necessarily in sex. I will admit I was somewhat out of the mainstream, but I enjoyed female company without being obsessed with sex and was rewarded for doing so. No I did not sleep through that stage of my life I was just taught to control my sexuality. Maybe I was not the average 20 year-old guy many of my friends came from the women as property religion, but it worked for me.

I agree with your basic premise about sexuality. In fact, my personal moral code pretty much mirrors yours. Past that, you make waaaay to many assumptions.